NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 16, 2006 -> 02:31 PM) Having said that, I think the same problem exists with evolution. You can inductively reason all you want that all these bones added up equals what we are today. But simply relying on that is not enough. 10 years ago the scientific world thought DDT was going to ruin the world and kill off every living thing. It didn't. 10 years ago people thought that cell phones were going to cause cancer of the brain. It didn't. There are many more scientific hiccups over history, all of which used inductive reasoning to arrive at their conclusion, most of which are proven to be false today. These are two interesting parallels, but I need to point out a couple things. One, DDT didn't kill off as many things as it could have because we stopped using it. And cell phones don't cause cancer (directly, at least - they may still be a contributor) because their radiation levels are too low. What is common about these two things is that scientific knowledge, in both cases, influenced policy and action is such a way as to prevent further disaster. DDT stopped being used, and cell phone companies have been very wary of radiation levels from their units. Just an interesting thing.

Seems pretty simple to me. I totally agree with the Democratic party in sending Lieberman out the door. After all, he isn't a Democrat. But on the other hand, more power to him if runs as an indepedent. I think that would be excellent.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Aug 16, 2006 -> 01:01 PM) This is what they went off of http://www.e85fuel.com/information/general_motors.php So we are saying we don't know for sure if this particular Envoy was E85 compatible? Fair enough. I'd be curious too, now that its on the table.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Aug 16, 2006 -> 12:55 PM) A hard liner would have blitzed these guys. But, they had to do it the 'soft' way. And, the 'leftist' party is in charge now in Isreal. I absolutely see the connection. It's much the same as saying if we wanted to take care of business, we could. But we have to 'debate' and 'compromise' and 'carry on diplomacy'. What part of existing UN resolutions that says Hezbollah must disarm is so difficult? What was so difficult that Iraq had to FULLY comply with UN resolutions? Oh, only if it serves purpose to make the US look bad. Whatever. You attached the word 'prepared' to 'liberal' as a negative correlation. There is no evidence of such. Having a hardline government in place would not have made them any more 'prepared'. They simply may have been more willing to go futher militarily. That is not preparation. Our highly NON-liberal government here in the US has been more than willing to drop the hammer on an Iraq that was irrelevant to the war on terror... and yet, we were obviously and painfully unprepared for the realities of said war.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Aug 16, 2006 -> 12:50 PM) Breaking story on Drudge GMC Envoy is indeed an E85 car. Heck, there is a picture of one on a billboard at The Cell. Unless of course Obama's is too old.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Aug 16, 2006 -> 12:35 PM) Balta, you're right in your comment. And Iran KNEW that this is how it would be played. Brilliant policy - and we got caught with our hands underneath our rear-end. BUT - I think underlying all of this is the 'liberal' regime that is in place in Isreal now. They were not prepared like they usually are. And it made them look foolish. I'm sorry... and there is what connection between 'liberal' and unprepared? Because I see zero. I do agree though, that Israel and the US have been caught with their pants down. Again. And Israel continues to lose their war.

QUOTE(vandy125 @ Aug 16, 2006 -> 12:39 PM) FWIW, call me crazy, but after going through this thread, and doing some studying up on several things like ice layers, coral layers, tree rings, radio-metric dating, etc (when I run into things like these, I cannot let them go). I have been swayed to change my mind on what I think about things (like the age of the earth, etc). My religious convictions still stay firmly intact, only with a better understanding. There is a lot less of the mess from putting up defenses without thoroughly looking through what they were. Hopefully, other people also check what they believe and continue to form them. Sorry about the complete derailment. Wow. I have to say Vandy, that's pretty amazing. I can't remember seeing anyone on this board get into an argument on one side, and after a short period, shift so dramatically - and acknowledge it. I don't think anyone can say you aren't open-minded. Having been raised Catholic, by the way, I do think one can have religious beliefs but not necessarily believe every letter of a given religion's law (or its strictest interperetation). We all make our own version of religion anyway.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Aug 16, 2006 -> 12:30 PM) It isn't just "stuff" with Phillips, this is his first year with any sort of real success since he spent 75 innings in high A ball. His days with Birmingham in a huge pitchers park were less than steller posting ERA/WHIPs of 4.02/1.39 and 4.07/1.41 that's pretty damn bad especially when you add in the fact that he really doesn't strike anyone out and gives up a ton of hits. So basically he has finally found some success at the age of 25, in a weak IL and if you look at any of his stats that aren't ERA or Wins they're not that impressive at all. He's basically getting demolished on the road and the trends from his early years in the minors have followed him to AAA as well. I will take your word for all of that. And I'd agree those BHam numbers aren't spectacular. And really, I wasn't just referring to Phillips. I meant in general. So, in his case... what if he starts again next year in Charlotte, and puts up similar or better numbers? I don't see his road/home splits so I don't know how bad they are - difficult for me to comment. But to me, if he can repeat his success, that's a pretty good indicator. And I see a lot of players who are successful that seem to get passed over for those who are PREDICTED to do better. I am not saying either one of those is invalid - I am saying BOTH are valid, and I think results and potential need to be balanced on analysis in the minors.

I always find this frustrating. I think perhaps its a little short-sighted to just look at "stuff" and "peripherals". If a guy can make his way up the minors, to being the best pitcher (not best arm or best talent, best PITCHER) on the staff... then you need to start thinking that he may have some success. I say this for two reasons. One, part of the "stuff" package should be the mental and physical makeup required to WIN consistently, and stay healthy. This guy appears to have that. Second reason: all this evaluation of "stuff" is, like all analysis, imperfect. And if your analysis says "this guys doesn't have it stuff", but he keeps being successful anyway... then maybe its time to realize a weakness in your analysis. If this were football, I'd call it the Steve Largent principle. What is perceived and predicted as important may give you a pretty good clue as to future performance... but what matters in the end is getting it done. Some guys just know how to get it done.

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Aug 15, 2006 -> 04:53 PM) Bulls***. I'm hoping I'm not too ignorant here, but why are you so strong to form an opinion on something when you are clearly clueless on the subject? Why should Balta take you by the hand and explain everything to you? Play nice, please.

QUOTE(vandy125 @ Aug 15, 2006 -> 03:32 PM) Here is were we differ. I think that the accuracy of the predictions grow less and less like fact the farther back you go, and become more and more theories and guesses. Kind of like say you look at a set of ballplayers who played from 2006. From there, you project back to what you think an average ballplayers batting average would have been back in 1900 without knowing a whole lot about 1900 (including everyone's BA). You may know of a few examples of some ballplayers from back then, but it is sufficiently far enough back that you have limited data. My point is that you are projecting current environments (ballparks, strength of players, etc) back in time to something that you do not have much knowledge of (again you may have a few remnants). A much more accurate case would be made if you projected only back to 2005. I'm not sure if I made that too clear or not, but it is easy to say that something that works one way at the current time in the current environment and under its current circumstances probably worked that way a few years ago. I do not think that you can project your reasoning (which may be sound at the current time) back millions or billions of years, IMO. What I am saying is not throwing out science, it is saying that the projections way back into the past are not as accurate as they are in the most recent past because we do not know what the circumstances could have been back then well enough to recreate the environment. If the universe is really billions of years old, we are basing our thoughts on what happened billions of years ago on what is an incredibly small set of observations from hundreds of years. OK. If we are going to delve into this topic, let's go cannonball. Riddle me this... Dinosaurs? Glaciation? Vulcanism? There are three things there which have occurred well into the past - a lot more than a few thousand years - and which we have not a little, but a LOT of evidence to prove. And in the latter two cases, they still happen today. So... what's the story there, in your view?

There seems to be some confusion here between two independent concepts - interest only loans (versus traditional prin+int), and variable (versus fixed) interest rates. An interest only loan is NOT NECESSARILY a variable rate loan (though often they are). For example... your 80% #1 mortgage could be interest only AND be at a FIXED RATE. That is possible. The point is... consider those dynamics distinctly, not as one combined thing. Let's put that in connection with the two main fears brought up here: declining home prices, and rising interest rates. Interest only loans DO put you at risk if home prices decline - regardless of whether or not they have a fixed interest rate. That is because you could quickly end up upside-down in the mortgage (more debt than value - which is bad). On the other hand, interest only loans are not effected by interest rate fluctuations whatsoever, IF they are fixed. Now, the other equation (fixed versus variable) is where the inflation and interest rate risk comes into play. if rates go up, and you have a variable rate loan (with some fixed period at first, usually), then when the rates update, you could suddenly have larger bills. And they could keep growing. On the other hand, variable rate loans are often lower to start (since you take on the risk), and if rates go down (unlikely anytime soon), you could make out nicely. So, be clear here - these are two seperate concepts, not one.

QUOTE(vandy125 @ Aug 15, 2006 -> 12:59 PM) I am tired of being called ignorant because of my beliefs. Now, I too agree that the science classroom is not the place to throw in personal religious beliefs that cannot be proven because they are studying what science can tell us. Science can only give natural explanations about our environment because it is a study of natural phenomenon. It can project back into the past on what it thinks has happened based only upon what is happening and can be tested today. There is no way to test a direct intervention by a diety at some point in time through natural phenomenon. The two occurences are mutually exclusive. One is natural, and the other is not natural. However, I still do believe that the universe was created thousands of years ago and not millions of years ago. I do not think that we can take a strictly uniformitarianistic view of history. I do not believe that the way things are happening now is exactly the same as they behaved years and years ago. How is it that one of the main rules of nature is that things tend to move toward disorder, except for this one case, evolution? The universe expands, we and everything around us age and decay, but somehow life has bucked that trend? These are my beliefs which I do agree do not belong in the science classroom. However, because of them I am labelled as ignorant, stupid, uneducated, far right, simple, etc. Can we get past the labelling and just state the claim that unnatural explanations of history do not belong in a naturalistic study of the world like modern science? Some people have absolute belief and faith in science being able to tell us everything. I do not. Does that make me part of a cult? What about naturalistic science? Why is blindly saying that there can only be natural explanations for everything not considered a cult? I am not saying that we should stop searching for scientific answers, I just think that we should be able to say that this is what science says, and here is why they say it. This is what someone else says, and here is why they say it. Believe in what you think is true. First, let me apologize if you think I meant to call you any of those things. I did not. I am specifically referring to science and religion as a balance. You can believe anything you want, and further, I have no particular reason to say those beliefs are wrong or in valid in any way. The ignorance I refer to come into play when those BELIEFS are taught as scientific FACTS. That is ignorant and small minded. And that is what I was refering to. Science does not have all the answers. Your statement that "unnatural explanations of history do not belong in a naturalistic study of the world like modern science" is perfect. I agree completely.

FYI, just checked ticketmaster for the remaining KC games. For 2 seats together... Tuesday: none available Wednesday: none available Thursday: Best is 542, Row 13 So I'd say Tue and Wed are sellouts, and Thursday has a shot.

Good article. This is one issue where I tend to side firmly on the left. I find this obsession of the religious conservatives to put their beliefs and values onto everyone else to be creepy at best, and downright dangerous to basic freedoms at worst. And the scariest quality about it is the apparent ability of some to willingly embrace ignorance, so that their selected acceptance of fact fits nicely into their oversimplified and fantastical view of the world. The root of this, I would theorize, is at least in part the fact that the world has become so complex. Most of us respond to that by growing and adapting. Others have decided to cower behind simplicity. Its an easy cop out - disregard the complexities in life. And if that meant leaving the city for a cabin in the woods to lead the simple life, then hey - that's adaptation and its positive. But when you try to beat me over the head with your literalist bible translations and attempt to restrict the freedoms of those around you, then you have stepped over the line. Science is discipline and order, and our religious beliefs have no place in it. As soon as we willingly choose blind faith over science, we have become members of a cult.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Aug 15, 2006 -> 09:48 AM) Wow, mine were way better last year. I thought you were a full season holder, no?

For those of you with 27 game plans, if you go to your Whitesox.com account and click through to the invoice for postseason tickets, it shows your seat locations for any theoretical postseason games. I Thought people might want to know. Ours are less than spectacular, but hey - at least we get to go, for face value! All 3 ALDS, 1 ALCS and 1 WS, if played. I assume that full season holders get their usual seats. I am not sure how Ozzie Plans (13 games) work.

Go fixed. Go fixed. Go fixed. And 8.325% does seem pretty high, even for that home equity/2nd. I just happen to be looking at some things right now too, and I saw a number of rates much lower than that. One thing that might be causing you that rate is that you are going 95% debt. Try to get below 95% if you can, or even better, below 90%. Rates will be better below each of those thresholds.

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Aug 14, 2006 -> 11:18 PM) Could this be a case where torture saved lives? I thought that torture never worked? Who said that? I think you are applying a statement to people that isn't true, at least in here anyway. The people I've seen in here argue against torture didn't argue against its effectiveness - it was an argument about legality and morality.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&...o_pr_wh/bush_14 Its amazing to me how angry this embarrassment of a leader makes me. And even more so as time goes on. I agree that Hezbollah represented nothing positive, that it was backed by Iran and maybe Syria, and that something needed to be done about it. He's right about all that. But is he on crack when he says he thinks Hezbollah was defeated? I mean seriously. Aside from the fact that they clearly are still around and in action, he also clearly has missed the whole point. He is making this out to be some victory in the war on terror. But in reality, Hezbollah did exactly what it set out to do - foment further anger against the west, draw more of the Middle East against them, make Israel look like butchers, and prevent democracy in Lebanon. Hezbollah won. We may not like that fact, but its fact nonetheless. I'd really like to see our leaders look past this, and move on to real peace. A robust international force allowing for the building AND KEEPING INTACT of a democratic Lebanon would be a good start. But there is so much more to do. So frustrating. The war on terror has always had three fronts - defense at home, pursuit and destruction of terror and infrastructure abroad, and psychological/political determination of cause and movement towards peace. Our efforts at home have had successes and failures. Our military campaigns have been poorly managed, and we couldn't even pick the right countries to fight. And there has been a complete and intentional ignorance of the political and cultural realities that create the anger. That is the biggest tragedy. ((*#&(*&$)(*&)$*&^)%&$*(&*(&$)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Dude makes me want to destroy things. So angry.

I'd like to see Mack starting in LF next year. Maybe even this year. Then let whomever matures out of AA and AAA come in at a reasonable pace - no need to rush them. Mack has 40 more OBP points, plays better D, has a better arm, has good speed, can bunt, BB and K about the same as Pods, and hustles like hell. Yeah, I know, he's not done well against lefties (.279 OBP), but Pods is just as bad (.281), and Mack hasn't gotten to see many of them yet.

QUOTE(Allsox @ Aug 14, 2006 -> 10:36 AM) Official capacity of Comiskey Park II is 40615 so as Steff would say, it's doable but attendence as reported is never about about 39400 tops, because of giveaways, promotions, etc. The effective capacity during regular season is 39 and change.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Aug 14, 2006 -> 08:22 AM) I don't think its all that necessary to have the typical leadoff guy as a leadoff man. Detroit has done fine with Granderson leading off, and he's far from typical. He has 8 steals and strikes out more than Thome. Detroit has been winning this season just like the Sox were last, as a result of excellent pitching. I think the Sox definitely want a better player in LF than Pods and they have young guys and money to get that done. That's why I'm intrigued with Sweeney leading off right now. He's not going to steal a ton, but I believe he will get on base. It may be too much to ask for a rookie however. Regardless, it will not matter who is leading off if the Sox pitch like they did in 2005. They would win most of the time. While I agree that speed is not necessary for a leadoff hitter (though I think its awfully good to have), my big focus is OBP. Who of that troop of outfielders is most likely to be able to go .350+ consistently at the ML level? And if there are a couple that are both there, speed may be the factor that pushes one past the other.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Aug 13, 2006 -> 09:29 PM) Alot of tigers fans sat near me on sat. well maybe only about 4. After givinig them the typical light hearted crap, we actually had some funny conversations. The one question I really had for one of the guys is why we he buy a Pudge jersey. Besides Bonds, isnt Pudge one of the most obvious cheaters in baseball today? When I buy a jersey, I like to make sure I not only like the player, but the person. It just strikes me odd to wear something representing one of the players who gave baseball a bad name. I'd like to add two other thoughts in this vein... 1. Ivan Rodriguez is NOT PUDGE!!! There was a Pudge, who was a catcher, and even played in the same league for a while. You may have heard of him. He's in the Hall of Fame. And I'm sorry but, Mr. Rodriguez, you are no Pudge. 2. Rodriguez really can't call a game can he? Does he have to go to the dugout for signs on EVERY pitch? QUOTE(MichiganBorn @ Aug 14, 2006 -> 07:22 AM) Well I said I'd be here even when they lost. And I'm here. The Tigers got man-handled. This doesn't bode well for the playoffs. I was hoping that they would atleast win one (and I really wanted two) but they didn't. The Sox are back on track and I would say the team to beat (Yankees have the hype the Sox have the team). So I suppose we'll see. I've been saying for monthes that the division wasn't sewn up and we all see that is very true. I tip my hat to Ozzie and the Sox Team. Very classy, sir.

Here is a question for you folks who follow our farm system more closely than I do... Who of our AA and AAA outfielders could play LF AND be a better leadoff hitter (immediately or eventually) than Pods? Does Sweeney have some speed, and can he get on base enough? Fields, same questions, plus add in the issue of playing OF defense. Does Owens have the stuff to be ready in 2007, or is he not ready yet? Who else might be a possibility?